(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company



"At 6:15 a.m., March 22, 1977, Brakeman Brigman on Extra 686 South (531 conn) came on the Dispatcher phone at Madill, Oklahoma, and rendered the following OS:









Account violation of Article 1 and other rules of the Telegrapher's agreement, now allow the Telegrapher whose hours of service converge nearest to the time of the violation at Madill, Oklahoma, an additional two hour call, advising to whom and when payment is being made."

 OPINION OF BOARD: In our review of this case we agree with Claimant that
 the Organization's withdrawal of an ostensibly similar
 claim (S-2484) and Carrier's reference to the August 10, 1977 Memorandum
 of Agreement relative to covered communications are irrelevant to this dis
 pute, since the claim withdrawal is not inferentially dispositive of the
 instant claim or the Memorandum applicable since it was consummated after
 this claim was initiated. We here carefully reviewed the numerous Awards of
 Public Law Board's 34 and 405 involving mostly the same parties and the
                  Docket Number CL-22771


same type of issue, but find that the fact particulars herein are distinguishable from the other cases.

 In this dispute, the critical question posed before this Board is whether or not the location of Train Extra 686 South was first revealed to the Dispatcher at Springfield, Missouri by the Brakeman or the Telegrapher at Sherman, Texas. By itself, the recorded communications between the Brakeman on 686 South and the Dispatcher would indicate that the Brakeman improperly reported the train's location in violation of the Telegr Awards 21 and 64 of Public Law Board would appear to apply. Article 1 of the Telegraphers Agreement specifically reserves the reporting of trains to telegraphers and an Agreement violation would have occurred if the Dispatcher first learned of the train's location from the brakeman. But in this instance, the of Train Extra 686 and called the Telegrapher at Sherman to obtain this information. He did not call the train directly to receive this information but called the telegrapher first pursuant to the clear requirements of Article I. A crew 686 did not first call him and note the lotion of the train, which would have been improper aorwas a distant telegrapher directed to determine the trains location.

 In Award No. 55 of Public law Board 405, the Board held that the Telegrapher at Denison, Texas should have been called first, since he was the nearby telegrapher, rather than the Telegrapher at Sherman, Texas to ascertain a train's location, but this case is different from the one before us. We are not concerned with which Telegrapher should have been called.

 The record shows that the Dispatcher wanted to know the location of Train Extra 686 so that he could issue train orders and that he properly called the Telegrapher who was further away from the Sherman Telegrapher. .Moreover the evidence does not indicate that the Dispatcher made only one call to the Telegrapher to direct him to have the Train's Engineer call him and implicitly ascertain the train's location from this person or another crew member $ but that tyro calls were made from the Dispatcher to the Telegrapher. The first call was to determine the train's location and the second call was to have the Engineer call the Dispatcher. Admittedly, the brakeman, after identifying himself no was not the first time that the Dispatcher learned of the Train's location. The Dispatcher was aware of the train's location after the first call and requested the Sherman telegrapher to have the Engineer come on the telephone at Madill to receive the train order. We do not find that he first learned of the train's position from the brake-
 The Dispatcher methodically involved himself with the authorized telegrapher prom the beginning of his efforts to locate the train until he issued train order 21 through the Telegrapher at Sheen, Texas.
                  Award Number 23045 Page 3

                  Docket Number CL-22771


His actions were consistent with the requirements of Article I and as such does not constitute an Agreement violation. We will deny the claim.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute a.^e respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
      -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of November 1980.